observing that “Title VII and the ADA impose liability only on employers”
How later courts described this case
- observing that “Title VII and the ADA impose liability only on employers”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAUREN LETITIA BROWN, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-CV-3131
:
DEB SULLI DEVEREUX, :
Defendant. :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2024, upon consideration upon consideration of
Plaintiff Lauren Letitia Brown’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), pro se
Complaint (ECF No. 2), and Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3), it is ORDERED that:
1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
2. The Complaint is DEEMED filed.
3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to AMEND the case caption to reflect two
separate Defendants:
a. Devereux
b. Deb Sulli
4. Lloyd’s claims against Deb Sulli are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), because Title VII does not provide a basis for
individual liability. See Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1078 (3d
Cir. 1996) (en banc) (“Congress did not intend to hold individual employees liable under Title
VII.”); see also Williams v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n, 870 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir.
2017) (observing that “Title VII and the ADA impose liability only on employers”).
5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Defendant Deb Sulli as a
party to this case.
6. The case shall proceed at this time to service by the U.S. Marshal Service, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), against the
following Defendant:
a. Devereux
7. In anticipation of service by the U.S. Marshal Service, the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to Brown together with one copy of the U.S. Marshal
Service of Process Receipt and Return Form USM-285 (“USM-285 Form”) for the Defendant
listed in paragraph six (6) of this Order. The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to record the
mailing on the docket.
8. To proceed with service, Brown must complete a USM-285 Form for the
Defendant listed in paragraph six (6) and return the completed form to the Clerk’s Office within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Service cannot be made by the U.S. Marshal
Service until Brown completes and returns this form.
9. In completing the USM-285 Form, Brown is instructed as follows:
a. Only one Defendant’s name should appear on the USM-285 Form.
b. Brown shall not complete a USM-285 Form for any individual or entity that is
not listed as a Defendant in paragraph six (6) of this Order, or any Defendant
who already has been dismissed from this case.
c. Brown should include as much identifying information as possible for each
Defendant, including the Defendant’s first name, last name, and, where
relevant, the Defendant’s badge number.
d. Brown must provide each Defendant’s complete address at a location where
that Defendant can be served. The U.S. Marshals Service cannot serve a
Defendant at a P.O. Box address. It is Brown’s responsibility, and not the
duty of the Court, the Clerk’s Office, or the Marshals Service, to ascertain the
address of the Defendant.1
e. Failure to include a proper address may result in the Defendant not being
served and/or the dismissal of Brown’s claims against any such Defendant.
10. Brown is cautioned that failure to return a completed USM-285 Form in
accordance with the above instructions may result in dismissal of this case for failure to
prosecute, without further notice from the Court.
11. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to docket any USM-285 Forms that Brown
returns in this case.
12. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED not to issue summonses at this time. The
Court will direct issuance of summonses upon receipt of a properly completed USM-285 Form.
13. The Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renewal after
any responsive pleadings.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Michael M. Baylson
MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, J.
1 See, e.g., Meade v. Reynolds, 810 F. App’x 86, 88 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (“[T]he plaintiff
must provide the district court with sufficient information to enable the Marshals Service to
effectuate service of process.” (citing Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993));
Harris v. McMullen, 609 F. App’x 704, 707 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (“Harris has not pointed
to any authority instructing that a District Court or the USMS must engage in extraordinary
measures to assist an [in forma pauperis] litigant in locating a defendant’s address for the
purpose of service of process, and we are not aware of any.”).